An official website of the United States government
Objectives Substantial inequalities in access to healthcare are common in rural and marginalized populations in the Global South, and these inequalities can drive health disparities. Historical mistrust of healthcare institutions can further impact healthcare behaviors, including vaccination. Here, we apply the concept of medical mistrust, which has been widely applied to healthcare decisions in industrialized countries, across a rural–urban spectrum of communities in Namibia, and assess its utility in understanding vaccination decisions. Methods Otjiherero-speaking indigenous communities of Kunene, Namibia, were surveyed to assess medical mistrust. Participants also answered questions about COVID-19 vaccination status, vaccine safety, and interest in a hypothetical malaria vaccine. Bayesian multilevel models were used to compare medical mistrust across communities and its influence on vaccination and vaccine perceptions. Results The level of medical mistrust varied across contexts, with the highest level of mistrust in peri-urban communities. Medical mistrust predicted beliefs about vaccine safety and interest in the malaria vaccine, but not COVID-19 vaccine status, which was largely driven by access to the vaccine. For rural and peri-urban Himba, participants also expressed disinterest in the COVID-19 vaccine and worries about its safety. Conclusion Addressing global health disparities requires understanding how locally contextualized social and ecological experiences shape healthcare and vaccination decisions. Results of this study show fundamental differences in medical mistrust by community, which may be contributing to beliefs about vaccines. Understanding how medical mistrust varies across these contexts, and how it impacts perceptions about vaccination, can inform health communication and public policy in underserved communities.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on May 1, 2026
“Better to die trying”: Vaccine perceptions and COVID-19 experiences in rural Namibian pastoralists
Substantial research indicates that local explanatory models of disease shape heath behaviors. However, less is known regarding how cultural models of disease influence interpretations of vaccines. Vaccination decisions are based around a plethora of social and cultural factors, including beliefs about disease, cultural-historical experiences with healthcare, and recent vaccination experiences. To understand how local interpretations of vaccination influence vaccination-decision making, we explore cultural models of health, vaccine norms, and COVID-19 beliefs and experiences in Himba and Herero pastoralists of the Kunene region of northern Namibia. Mixed sex focus groups were conducted in July and August of 2024 in communities across a rural and peri-urban gradient. Discussion prompts were designed to elicit dialogue on vaccination beliefs, norms, and experiences, as well as their recent experience with COVID-19. Results from these focus groups indicate that there was substantial confusion differentiating vaccinations from other types of injections. For childhood vaccines, immunization is normative and expected. Women were the primary decision-makers for childhood immunization, reflecting the matrilineal bias of Himba and Herero kinship. For adults, while local leaders had some influence interfacing with public health outreach, the decision to get vaccinated was largely a personal one. Beliefs about COVID-19 were interpreted through pre-existing cultural models of illness, and beliefs about the origins of COVID-19 reflected mistrust in international actors. Fears about COVID-19 vaccines were common, particularly concerns about vaccine safety. However, fears of the illness typically overrode fears of the vaccine, and most report receiving the vaccine despite these worries. These results highlight the importance of extending research beyond a knowledge, attitude, practice framework to incorporate local explanatory models and cultural-historical experiences in understanding vaccine-decision making. These features are particularly important in more traditional, rural, and marginalized populations where medical mistrust is common and local explanatory models of disease drive healthcare decision-making.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2438025
- PAR ID:
- 10610729
- Publisher / Repository:
- ScienceDirect
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Vaccine
- Volume:
- 55
- Issue:
- C
- ISSN:
- 0264-410X
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 127061
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Perceptions of healthcare personnel and institutions substantially impact healthcare behaviors. In the US, minority experiences with racist events like the Tuskegee study, alongside everyday experiences of marginalization and discrimination, drive medical mistrust in populations that are already burdened with health inequalities. However, the concept of medical mistrust is rarely applied outside of industrialized contexts. Histories of colonialism, underfunded healthcare institutions, and the enormous cultural and ethnolinguistic diversity present in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) make medical mistrust a likely contributor to health behavior in these contexts. In the era of COVID-19 and emergent malaria vaccines, there is an urgent need to mitigate factors leading to medical mistrust, which impedes interest in novel vaccines. Doing so requires substantial investment in research that examines the causes of medical mistrust across diverse communities, develops methodological tools that can effectively measure medical mistrust across diverse cultural and ethno-linguistic contexts, and applies this data to policy and public health messaging. This commentary highlights the role of medical mistrust in vaccination and argues for its utility in addressing vaccine decision-making in LMICs.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundAs Namibia attempts to eradicate locally transmitted cases of malaria, epidemiological strategies, interventions, and outreach require a sound understanding of indigenous knowledge and practice. Research describing local explanatory models of disease can be of value in these efforts by elucidating how disease is interpreted and treated. To understand how perceptions of malaria infection and treatment may influence health-seeking behaviour, cultural models of the disease were explored in two ethnic groups in rural northwest Namibia. MethodsMixed-sex focus groups of 4–8 individuals were conducted in the Kunene region of Namibia. All participants were either Himba or Herero and lived between 14 and 57 km of the regional town centre of Opuwo. Discussion prompts were designed to assess knowledge, beliefs, and norms about malaria, including causes, symptoms, treatment, and prevention. ResultsFocus groups reported universal difficulty in discrimination between malaria and respiratory infections, the former of which was often only diagnosed at the hospital. Some recognized mosquitoes as the source of malaria, particularly the more formally educated Herero, but all also reported other causes. Notably these causes, including dietary and temperature-based origins, were considered unavoidable. Himba and Herero believed that malaria was infectious person-to-person and incorrectly believed that malaria was most common during the wintertime. Both groups also relied on a number of traditional remedies to alleviate symptoms, which were used as primary treatment, with formal healthcare treatment typically only sought when the illness progressed. ConclusionsThese results highlight significant differences between local cultural models and biomedical ones that could be detrimental to malaria eradication efforts. Kunene pastoralists have limited understanding of the causes of malaria, and beliefs about environmental and dietary causes may undermine attempts at prevention. Seeking healthcare solutions to malaria was normative, but secondary to use of at home traditional remedies. These findings indicate public health outreach and information campaigns are needed, particularly in rural groups with less formal education.more » « less
-
Abstract In this paper we examine the relationship between vaccination against COVID‐19 and both the death rate from COVID‐19 and the rate of COVID‐19 spread. Our goal is determine if vaccination is associated with reduced death and/or spread of disease at the local level. This analysis was conducted at the county level in the state of Pennsylvania, United States of America, with data that were collected during the first half of 2022 from the state of Pennsylvania's Covid Dashboard (COVID‐19 Data for Pennsylvania (pa.gov). This study finds the vaccines to be highly effective in preventing death from Corona virus, even at a time when there was a mismatch between the vaccines and the prevalent variants. Specifically, a 1% increase in vaccination rate was found to correspond to a 0.751% decrease in death rate (95% confidence interval [0.236%, 1.266%]). Given that, during this time period, the vaccines being used were not geared specifically toward the common variants at that time, we found no statistically significant relationship between disease spread and vaccination rate at the county level. These results support previous findings from across the world that Covid vaccination is highly efficacious in preventing death from the disease. Even during a time when vaccine design was not optimally matched with the prevailing strains, vaccination was found to reduce death rate. Hence, improving global vaccine availability is vitally important, to achieve necessary outcomes.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Most research on vaccine hesitancy has focused on parental attitudes toward childhood vaccination, but it will be important to understand dimensions of vaccine hesitancy in the adult population as more adult vaccines are introduced in the future. We modified the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale to target adult vaccines and provide measures of its reliability and validity relative to influenza vaccine uptake and COVID-19 vaccination acceptance in cross-sectional internet surveys in the United States and in China. We assessed the impact of vaccine hesitancy on influenza and COVID-19 vaccination using multivariable regression modeling, which informed concurrent validity of the adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (aVHS). Among 1103 participants in the March 2020 China survey, 5.4% would not accept a COVID-19 vaccine, whereas this figure was 18.8% for the March 2020 US survey and 27.3% for the June 2020 US survey. The aVHS exhibits good internal consistency in all three surveys. Models adjusted for age, gender and income level show that prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was a fraction as high in those who scored higher on the VHS than those who scored lower on all three surveys. Prevalence of past and future flu vaccine acceptance was a fraction as high in those with higher aVHS scores than those with lower scores. Prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance is lower in those with higher vaccine hesitancy scores, which supports the scale’s concurrent validity. The aVHS exhibits good internal consistency, making it a valid and reliable tool for measuring vaccination uptake.more » « less
